Duplicate SSH Task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are all false and carry no safety or behavioral signal. The description adds some context ('through the command bus', copies steps) but does not disclose side effects, whether a new task ID is generated, permissions needed, or what happens to the original task. This is minimal beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise, front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes to defining the operation and its scope without unnecessary filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low parameter coverage and false annotations, the description is too sparse for a mutation tool. It does not clarify required vs optional inputs, return behavior, or how duplicates are saved—leaving the agent to infer critical operational details despite an output schema being present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain taskId or workspaceId. While taskId is reasonably inferable, workspaceId's role is unspecified, and no compensation is provided for the lack of parameter metadata.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Duplicates a saved SSH task') and explicitly scopes the scope of duplication ('and its steps'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like save_task, run_task, and delete_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The verb 'duplicates' implies the use case—copying an existing task—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over save_task, get_task, or other related tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.